DOCSLIB.ORG

Assignment of Efficiency Dividend Proceeds to Better

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Assignment of Efficiency Dividend Proceeds to Better The Treasury Budget 2011 Information Release Release Document June 2011 www.treasury.govt.nz/publications/informationreleases/budget/2011 Key to sections of the Official Information Act 1982 under which information has been withheld. Certain information in this document has been withheld under one or more of the following sections of the Official Information Act, as applicable: [1] 9(2)(a) - to protect the privacy of natural persons, including deceased people [2] 9(2)(f)(iv) - to maintain the current constitutional conventions protecting the confidentiality of advice tendered by ministers and officials [3] 9(2)(g)(i) - to maintain the effective conduct of public affairs through the free and frank expression of opinions [4] 9(2)(b)(ii) - to protect the commercial position of the person who supplied the information or who is the subject of the information [5] 9(2)(k) - to prevent the disclosure of official information for improper gain or improper advantage [6] 9(2)(j) - to enable the Crown to negotiate without disadvantage or prejudice [7] 6(a) - to prevent prejudice to the security or defence of New Zealand or the international relations of the government [8] 9(2)(h) - to maintain legal professional privilege [9] 6(c) - to prevent prejudice to the maintenance of the law, including the prevention, investigation, and detection of offences, and the right to a fair trial [10] 9(2)(d) - to avoid prejudice to the substantial economic interests of New Zealand [11] 9(2)(i) - to enable the Crown to carry out commercial activities without disadvantage or prejudice. Where information has been withheld, a numbered reference to the applicable section of the Official Information Act has been made, as listed above. For example, an [8] appearing where information has been withheld in a release document refers to section 9(2)(h). In preparing this Information Release, the Treasury has considered the public interest considerations in section 9(1) of the Official Information Act. Office of the Minister of Finance Memorandum for Cabinet Budget 2011: Assignment of Efficiency Dividend Proceeds to “Better Services for Less” Initiatives Proposal 1. This paper proposes that $6 million of the $868 million (over five years) of funding released by the termination of central funding for state sector employer contributions to retirement income schemes be assigned to two new one year funding pools designed to test a pipeline of cross-agency investments to generate ongoing savings and accelerate the pace of the government’s “Better Services for Less” agenda. If this test demonstrates value by delivering “Better Services for Less” savings I will seek to extend funding for outyears. Executive Summary 2. The companion paper “Efficiency Dividend for Budget 2012’ seeks Cabinet’s agreement to the broad design parameters of an efficiency dividend on core government administration that will apply from 1 July 2012 but will be announced as part of the forthcoming Budget. The dividend will be a key tool for both incentivising – and capturing a share of the benefits from – the transformation of public services. A significant share of the cashable savings generated by the efficiency dividend will be applied to government priorities, including debt reduction. 3. The other companion paper “Budget 2011: Making Kiwisaver More Cost-Effective” is seeking – amongst other measures – Cabinet’s agreement to the termination of central funding for state sector employer contributions to Kiwisaver, the SSRSS and TRSS from 1st July 2012. In practice the termination of this funding represents the ‘first tranche’ of the efficiency dividend. It is therefore appropriate that Cabinet concurrently considers whether any portion of these savings should be assigned to testing an ongoing pipeline of cross-agency investments that will generate ongoing savings and contribute to the government’s “Better Services for Less” agenda. 4. Senior Chief Executives have stated that a well telegraphed baseline funding reduction is a preferable way of generating seed finance for cross-agency initiatives than the repeated ‘top slicing’ of departmental baselines at short notice. There is also concern that in the absence of a central pool of seed finance many promising ideas to deliver “Better Services for Less” across the public sector are lying dormant. 5. While progress has been made in pursuing some cross-agency ICT investments such as the Infrastructure as a Service (IaaS) initiative, dedicated funding for common ICT capability development is now exhausted and a suite of promising initiatives has stalled. For other functional areas, such as human resources and 614/0 /2011 1 f inance, there has been no progress in developing common capabilities due to the lack of a developmental pipeline. 6. Assigning funding to the development of an ongoing pipeline of cross-agency investments will provide greater assurance that the ambitious efficiency dividend targets will be achieved. In many cases the achievement of the efficiency dividend savings will necessitate significant transformation towards business models that leverage scale across the public sector, rather than just incremental efficiency adjustments. 7. This is a new approach and requires testing to demonstrate value. Subject to this funding delivering value by delivering further “Better Services for Less” savings I propose to seek further outyear funding to support this approach in Budget 2012. 8. I propose that in the 2011/12 year $6 million of the $868 million (over five years) of savings released by terminating central funding for state sector employer contributions be reassigned to test the value of two new cross-agency investment pools: • a Vote: Internal Affairs appropriation to fund the development of a portfolio of potential cross-agency ICT investments from conception through to detailed business cases ($3 million); and • a new “Better Services for Less” 2011 Budget tagged contingency to fund a development pipeline of cross-agency initiatives to reshape the efficiency and quality of public services, including initiatives relating to procurement, human resources, finance, insurance, property, corporate & executive services, policy advisory services, and frontline services ($3 million). 9. This paper sets out the intended uses and governance associated with these two funding pools. Background Efficiency Dividend 10. The companion paper “Efficiency Dividend for Budget 2012’ seeks Cabinet’s agreement to the broad design parameters of an efficiency dividend on core government administration that will apply from 1 July 2012 but will be announced as part of the forthcoming Budget. The dividend will be a key tool for both incentivising – and capturing a share of the benefits from – the transformation of public services. A significant share of the cashable savings generated by the efficiency dividend will be applied to government priorities, including debt reduction. [2] 12. There may be some refinement to this base as the detailed design of the efficiency dividend progresses. 614/0 /2011 2 Termination of Central Funding for Kiwisaver, SSRSS and TRSS 13. The companion paper “Budget 2011: Making Kiwisaver More Cost-Effective” is seeking – amongst other measures – Cabinet’s agreement to the termination of central funding for state sector employer contributions to Kiwisaver, the SSRSS and TRSS from 1st July 2012. In practice this represents the ‘first tranche’ of any efficiency dividend, not only for the departments that fall within the scope of the proposed dividend, but also for those departments and Crown entities that fall outside its scope. 14. Given the termination of central funding for state sector employer contributions to retirement income schemes is effectively the first tranche of any efficiency dividend it is appropriate that Cabinet concurrently considers whether any portion of the consequential savings should be assigned to testing the value of a pipeline of cross-agency investments that contribute to the government’s “Better Services for Less” agenda. ‘Better Services for Less’ 15. The fiscal discipline generated by ongoing cost pressure, coupled with the forthcoming efficiency dividend, should be sufficient to incentivise the creation of a developmental pipeline of projects ongoing savings at the individual agency level. This will; also be the case for some projects involving small clusters of agencies. 16. The pace of transformation is likely to accelerate as agencies respond to the latest round of administrative and support benchmarking data. Recent benchmarking by the Better Administrative and Support Services (BASS) team within Treasury indicates that a reduction in variability in efficiency across agencies could, conservatively, reduce A&S spending by $236 million annually for the 33 participating agencies. 17. Existing cross-agency initiatives have demonstrated the potential to make significant savings by leveraging scale and building common capabilities across the public sector: • The government procurement reform programme is projected to save $115 million over five years; • The one.govt communications services are projected to save $230 million of direct benefits over 10 years. If indirect benefits are included the savings increase to $400-$600 million; • The ICT Infrastructure as a Service (IaaS) initiative is projected to save around $200 million over 10 years; and 18. In most cases dedicated funding has been made available to develop these projects, including procurement reform, one-govt and IaaS. The Department of Internal
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Commonwealth Budget: Process and Presentation (Updated April 2010)
    Parliament of Australia Department of Parliamentary Services Parliamentary Library Information, analysis and advice for the Parliament RESEARCH PAPER www.aph.gov.au/library 27 April 2010, no. 16, 2009–10, ISSN 1834-9854 The Commonwealth Budget: process and presentation (updated April 2010) Richard Webb Economics Section Executive summary • This Research Paper contains an overview of the Commonwealth budget process. It describes the main stages in the process, the system of appropriations, budget documents, reporting requirements, and key concepts and terms. It also describes how the content and presentation of the Budget have changed. Contents Introduction .......................................................... 1 1. Overview of the budget process .......................................... 1 1.1 Budget Process Operational Rules ..................................... 2 1.2 Strategic Priorities and Budget Committee of Cabinet ....................... 2 1.3 Portfolio budget submissions ......................................... 2 1.4 Estimates ....................................................... 3 1.5 Expenditure Review Committee and the budget Cabinet...................... 3 1.6 Budget documents ................................................. 4 1.7 Budget presentation ................................................ 4 1.8 Senate estimates committees ......................................... 5 1.9 Additional estimates ............................................... 5 1.10 Final Budget Outcome ............................................
    [Show full text]
  • False Economies: Unpacking Public Service Efficiency
    ISSN: 1835-0135 False Economies: Unpacking public service efficiency By Christopher Stone Public Service Research Director with Emma Cheyne, Matthew Wilkinson, Neha Kasbekar & Stephen Beverley June 2014 False Economies False Economies: ISSN 1835-0135 This paper is the final in a series looking at the false economies that result from short-term thinking on Australia’s public services. It incorporates updated versions of the previous three reports in the series: ‘Decoding efficiency’, ‘Doing less with less’ and ‘Bang for our bucks’. Be part of our ongoing public sector discussion on Twitter by using #falseeconomies #ozpublicservice or #ozbigsociety. About the Author Christopher Stone is the Research Director of the Centre for Policy Development’s Public Service Program. His interests focus on the use of social science concepts and findings to improve the effectiveness of regulation and governance. Christopher has previously worked in university research centres focusing on environmental law and policy. He has worked with a range of State Government departments and Local Governments in previous research projects. He has qualifications in law, psychology and philosophy. Acknowledgements This publication was funded by the Community and Public Sector Union (CPSU), the Becher Foundation and Slater & Gordon to contribute to the debate on public sector reform in Australia. Its conclusions do not necessarily reflect the views of its funders. CPD would like to thank the Public Service Program’s funders for making this publication possible. This paper was subject to an informal review process. Thanks to Greg Smith, Ian McAuley, Kathy MacDermott, Miriam Lyons, Travers McLeod, Kristin van Barneveld, Stilgherrian and Tim Roxburgh for their helpful feedback.
    [Show full text]
  • Public Sector Expenditure
    Table of Contents Submission to the Standing Committee on Estimates an d About CCI ............................................................................................... .. ................. 3 Financial Operations Inquiry into Public Sector Executive Summary .......................................................................................... ........ 4 Expenditure Findings and Recommendations ..... ................................... ..................... .. ............... 6 Economic and Fiscal Overview ..... ........................................................................... 8 Public Sector Expenditure ......... ... ............... ................................... ... .... ................. 10 Recent Trends .. ............................................................................... ...... ......................... .............. 10 Recurrent Expenditure ,' , ...... , .. .. , ............................... , ... , ..... ... ....... .. ......................... ........ ... ....... 10 Capital Expenditure ...... ............................ .......... .. ......... .. ... ........... .. ...... .......... ...... .... .. .... ........... 12 Need for Reform .... ... ... ... ................................. ........................................................ 14 Recent Commitments ............................... ........... ..................... .......................................... ......... 14 Endnotes and References ............. .................................... ... ... ........... ... ....
    [Show full text]
  • Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea
    A4 THE ROYAL BOROUGH OF KENSINGTON AND CHELSEA CABINET - 19 FEBRUARY 2009 REPORT BY THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR FINANCE, INFORMATION SYSTEMS AND PROPERTY REVENUE BUDGET AND COUNCIL TAX 2009/10 This paper sets out the following recommendations for Cabinet to make to Council on 4 March: total gross revenue spending of £531 million. Within that: a budget requirement of £182 million funded from grant and Council Tax; including: a one-off efficiency dividend of £50 for resident Council Tax payers in April and further measures aimed at helping local businesses, which together promote economic well being. These will cost up to £4.2 million; and a 3.2 per cent Council Tax increase for the Royal Borough for 2009/10. FOR DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 The recommendations made in this paper are: consistent with the Council’s medium term financial strategy (Appendix 1 ) and its policy on reserves ( Appendix 2 ); follow consultation with the Overview and Scrutiny Committees and others on the 2009/10 proposed budget (set out in Appendices 3 to 5); and take account of Council’s agreement to the Council Tax base on 21 January. 1.2 They have been tested against the outlook for the economy, the public finances and residents’ views. 2 THE COUNCIL’S POLICIES 2.1 The proposed budget will maintain the Council Tax rate in the bottom quartile for London; identifies £5.4 million of savings and re-direction of spending to higher priorities; provides for price increases and retains a minimum of £10 million in working balances.
    [Show full text]
  • Report on the Inquiry Into Public Sector Expenditure
    THIRTY-EIGHTH PARLIAMENT REPORT 21 STANDING COMMITTEE ON ESTIMATES AND FINANCIAL OPERATIONS REPORT ON THE INQUIRY INTO PUBLIC SECTOR EXPENDITURE Presented by Hon Giz Watson MLC (Chair) May 2009 STANDING COMMITTEE ON ESTIMATES AND FINANCIAL OPERATIONS Date first appointed: 30 June 2005 Terms of Reference: The following is an extract from Schedule 1 of the Legislative Council Standing Orders: ‘2. Standing Committee on Estimates and Financial Operations 2.1 An Estimates and Financial Operations Committee is established. 2.2 The Committee consists of 5 Members, 3 of whom shall be non-government Members. 2.3 The functions of the Committee are to consider and report on - (a) the estimates of expenditure laid before the Council each year; (b) any matter relating to the financial administration of the State; (c) any bill or other matter relating to the foregoing functions referred by the House; (d) to consult regularly with the Auditor General and any person holding an office of a like character.’ Members of the Standing Committee on Estimates and Financial Operations for the purpose of the inquiry into Public Sector Expenditure: Hon Giz Watson MLC (Chair) Hon Sue Ellery MLC (substitute for Sheila Mills MLC) Hon Brian Ellis MLC Hon Jon Ford MLC (substitute for Hon Ken Travers MLC) Hon Helen Morton MLC Hon Ken Travers MLC (participating Member pursuant SO326) Staff as at the time of this inquiry: Suzanne Veletta, Advisory Officer (General) Renae Jewell, Committee Clerk Address: Parliament House, Perth WA 6000, Telephone (08) 9222 7222 [email protected] Website: http://www.parliament.wa.gov.au ISBN 978-1-921243-98-1 Note The Twenty First Report of the Standing Committee on Estimates and Financial Operations consists of a Report of the Committee and a Minority Report of Hon Brian Ellis MLC.
    [Show full text]
  • The Efficient-Market Hypothesis and the Financial Crisis
    October 28, 2011 The Efficient-Market Hypothesis and the Financial Crisis Burton G. Malkiel* Abstract The world-wide financial crisis of 2008-2009 has left in its wake severely damaged economies in the United States and Europe. The crisis has also shaken the foundations of modern-day financial theory, which rested on the proposition that our financial markets were basically efficient. Critics have even suggested that the efficient--market–hypotheses (EMH) was in large part, responsible for the crises. This paper argues that the critics of EMH are using a far too restrictive interpretation of what EMH means. EMH does not imply that asset prices are always “correct.” Prices are always wrong, but no one knows for sure if they are too high or too low. EMH does not imply that bubbles in asset prices are impossible nor does it deny that environmental and behavioral factors cannot have profound influences on required rates of return and risk premiums. At its core, EMH implies that arbitrage opportunities for riskless gains do not exist in an *Princeton University. I am indebted to Alan Blinder and to the participants in the Russell Sage Conference on Economic Lessons From the Financial Crisis for extremely helpful comments. 2 efficiently functioning market and if they do appear from time to time that they do not persist. The evidence is clear that this version of EMH is strongly supported by the data. EMH can comfortably coexist with behavior finance, and the insights of Hyman Minsky are particularly relevant in eliminating the recent financial crisis. Bubbles, when they do exist are particularly dangerous when they are financed with debt.
    [Show full text]
  • Program Impact Assessment
    Inclusive Financial Sector Development Program, Subprogram 2 (RRP CAM 44263–015) PROGRAM IMPACT ASSESSMENT 1. Executive Summary 1. Only a few policy actions have been selected to estimate costs and benefits in this assessment. Transfers between agents within the economy are excluded, as far as is practicable, although direct transfers to the poor are incorporated. Benefits are attributed to two channels: reduced borrowing costs and increased access to finance. Reduced borrowing costs are achieved by having a better regulatory framework that reduces risks to lenders and increases confidence among borrowers; this deepens the financial market thus making it more flexible and responsive to consumer needs. Improved access to finance is achieved by improving financial literacy of borrowers, enabling more efficient microfinance and increasing the number of ATMs and bank branches. Improved financial inclusion also helps to alleviate poverty and reduce income inequality, in addition to measures that specifically target the poor, rural people and women. In summary, the program produces benefits to the economy with a present value of between $341 million and $672 million, with the most likely scenario yielding $507 million in benefits. Benefits are split evenly between reduced borrowing costs and financial inclusion. Estimated costs range between $113 and $282 million and arise primarily from staffing and regulatory costs, as well as the establishment of a deposit protection scheme. 2. Macroeconomic context 2. The Cambodian economy has grown above 7% per annum from 2011 to 2016 with a slight decrease to just below 7% in 2017 and 2018. This growth is broadly in line with Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) countries in a similar stage of economic development such as Laos, Myanmar and Vietnam.
    [Show full text]
  • EM-1.3 Financial Institution Rating System
    EM-1.3 Category: General Information Topic: Financial Institution Rating System Published: 2/13/2020 Introduction Most financial institutions are categorized and rated by their respective regulators through the Uniform Financial Institutions Rating System. This system has been modified to reflect the non-depository nature of Farm Credit System (System) institutions and adopted by the Farm Credit Administration (FCA or Agency) to evaluate and categorize the safety and soundness of System institutions on an ongoing, uniform, and comprehensive basis. FCA’s Financial Institution Rating System (FIRS), as outlined in FCA Board Policy Statement 72, provides valuable information to the Agency for assessing risk and allocating resources based on the safety and soundness of regulated institutions. As such, it is a key component of the Agency’s risk assessment process. The FIRS also provides an effective mechanism for identifying problem or deteriorating institutions, categorizing institutions with deficiencies in particular component areas, and communicating the overall condition of the System to internal and external stakeholders. This section of the Examination Manual provides an overview of the FIRS process and describes the general factors considered in assigning institution ratings. Refer to the FIRS Guide in Attachment 1 for a detailed description of the factors and criteria used in assigning ratings. Overview Although each institution has its own examination and supervisory issues and concerns, the FIRS is structured to provide a consistent rating system for all significant financial, asset quality, and management factors. Under the FIRS, each institution is assigned composite and component ratings based on an evaluation and rating of six essential components of an institution’s financial condition and operations.
    [Show full text]
  • Budget Strategy and Outlook 2019-20
    Budget Strategy and Outlook 2019-20 Budget Paper No. 2 Budget Strategy and Outlook Contents Under Treasurer’s Certification 3 Chapter 1 Overview 5 Chapter 2 Fiscal outlook 11 Chapter 3 Economic outlook 27 Chapter 4 Fiscal strategy statement 39 Chapter 5 Intergovernmental financial relations issues 51 Chapter 6 Territory taxes and royalties 65 Chapter 7 Risks and contingent liabilities 81 Chapter 8 Uniform presentation framework 93 Appendices 113 Appendix A Classification of entities in the Northern Territory 115 Appendix B Glossary 116 1 2019-20 Budget 2 Budget Strategy and Outlook Under Treasurer’s Certification In accordance with provisions of the Fiscal Integrity and Transparency Act 2001, I certify that the financial projections included in the May 2019 Budget documentation were based on Government decisions that I was aware of or that were made available to me by the Treasurer before 28 April 2019. The projections presented here are in accordance with the Uniform Presentation Framework. Craig Graham Under Treasurer 29 April 2019 3 2019-20 Budget 4 Budget Strategy and Outlook Chapter 1 Overview Budget Paper No. 2 presents whole of government financial information and consolidates information from other budget papers. It also meets the requirements of the Fiscal Integrity and Transparency Act 2001 and the Uniform Presentation Framework, as agreed by all Australian jurisdictions. Fiscal outlook The 2019-20 Budget incorporates significant savings and revenue measures approved through the recent root and branch program review and government’s response to the recommendations of the Fiscal Strategy Panel’s final report: A plan for budget repair. The measures introduced in the 2019-20 Budget demonstrate the government’s commitment to returning the budget to a sustainable position and is underpinned by a new fiscal strategy with the twin objectives of supporting the economy in the short term and providing a pathway back to a balanced budget and reduced debt levels over the medium term.
    [Show full text]
  • Decoding Efficiency
    False economies DECODING EFFICIENCY ¢£¤≠º€≠@=&§¤‡‰∂∆Ø=¥§Ω◊€ ¥§<€µE»¿×Ø÷ð◊≤*§∫<$@º#^ º±¥¢∂∆F∑√∞∫≈†>%π@ø¢º±≠@ {~∫§¤&¡F¢£¤¥§<€≠ºµ+Ω◊¢∂ #$% º±¥¢{I*+<@[◊«‰^¤¥§¥ Œ£π†≥$∫§¤¡C¤§%¡Ø=&§≠≤*‡ ‡‰Œ¤€Ωº‰±¥¢=I±^≥¿¡@Øð÷∫ ≤≠+∫∑µøΩ=&]‰‡Eπ÷»¤‰^µ§$ ð×∂∆º±^¥¢√≥~&}N^≠¤€Ωº‰# |†€«@=&$>#[§º‰^¡C§◊+«±@ ≈◊π€§≥§»¿Ø<]%§¤¡*Y∫Œ£π≠ ∫§¤¡=&º‰^µ§$+«Œ¥≠§¤‡‰∂Ω Christopher Stone Public Service Research Director April 2013 About the Author Christopher Stone is the Research Director of the Centre for Policy Development’s Public Service Program. His interests focus on the use of social science concepts and findings to improve the effectiveness of regulation and governance. Christopher has previously worked in university research centres focusing on environmental law and policy. He has worked with a range of state government departments and local governments in previous research projects. He has qualifications in law, psychology, and philosophy. Acknowledgements This publication was funded by the Community and Public Sector Union (CPSU), the Becher Foundation and Slater & Gordon to contribute to the debate on public sector reform in Australia. Its conclusions do not necessarily reflect the views of its funders. CPD would like to thank the Public Service Program’s funders for making this publication possible. This paper was subject to an informal review process. Thanks to Ian McAuley, Greg Smith, and Miriam Lyons for their helpful feedback. All conclusions and any errors that remain are the author’s own. About CPD The Centre for Policy Development is a progressive think tank dedicated to seeking out creative, viable ideas and innovative research to inject into Australia’s policy debates. We give a diverse, cross-disciplinary community of thinkers space to imagine solutions to Australia’s most urgent challenges, and we connect their ideas with policy makers, media and concerned citizens.
    [Show full text]
  • Output Based Funding Model Principles
    OUTPUT BASED FUNDING MODEL PRINCIPLES (Financial Years 2019-20 to 2021-22) Background and purpose All Australian Governments have agreed to continue to meet the fair and reasonable costs of the Australian Red Cross Blood Service (Blood Service), to allow the Blood Service to meet it supply and quality obligations, in accordance with the arrangements under the Deed and the Funding and Services Agreement. This commitment is limited to paying the Blood Service for the cost of products and services provided in accordance with arrangements established under the National Blood Agreement and consistent with policy determined by Australian Governments. Australian Governments also require adequate accountability and transparency in the application of funding provided to the Blood Service and that the Blood Service appropriately manages its affairs and associated financial risks within the resources provided by the Australian Governments. Consequently, the National Blood Authority (NBA) on behalf of Australian Governments, and the Blood Service have agreed to the high level funding principles set out in this document. These Principles cover the funding cycle consisting of the following financial years: • 2019-20 (Year 1) • 2020-21 (Year 2) • 2021-22 (Year 3) Edited version for publication on NBA website The Output Based Funding Model Principles (OBFM) provided here has been edited, and is not in the form as executed. In addition, certain parts of the contract are not disclosed. The OBFM is provided for information only and should not be relied on by any person. The NBA is not liable for any reliance upon the contract herein which results in loss or damage to any person.
    [Show full text]
  • Federal Budget 2016
    Contents Executive summary ........................................................................... 1 Economic and fiscal analysis ............................................................. 2 Economic assumptions ..................................................................... 3 Personal tax ....................................................................................... 4 Business tax ...................................................................................... 5 International tax ................................................................................. 7 Small business................................................................................... 8 Superannuation.................................................................................. 9 Infrastructure ................................................................................... 11 Free Trade & Customs .................................................................... 12 Health and ageing ............................................................................ 13 Human services ............................................................................... 14 Education ......................................................................................... 15 Defence ........................................................................................... 16 Overview of changes ...................................................................... 17 Announced but unenacted measures ............................................
    [Show full text]